Battle of Britain 75th Anniversary Air Show pics

[zuluhour]

+1 GREAT PICS. Watched some on U-tube and the BBC. Man I'd like to hear them humm'in!

[spence]

Thanks for the pics - couldn't really have been in Britain though...way too much sun.[:D]

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Is there an easy way to identify which one is which?

If you get to see them from above/below, the spitfire has elliptical wings* while the hurricane's wings are straight.

(* Note some late Spitfire MkVs had the wing tips removed giving a square tip and improved roll rate).

BTW: That formation in post 4 appears to be led by a Packard engined, clipped wing, bubble canopy Spitfire Mk XVIe which looks significantly different from Warspite's picture of a Mk1 above. (The design evolved over the war).

[wdolson]

A number of Mk IXs had clipped wings too.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Reg

If you get to see them from above/below, the spitfire has elliptical wings* while the hurricane's wings are straight.

Are you sure the Hurricane wings are straight?
in most pictures I have seen, they look rather elliptical.
Unless I am not understanding the difference between straight wings (like those on the BF109E) and elliptical (like Spitfire)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: Reg

If you get to see them from above/below, the spitfire has elliptical wings* while the hurricane's wings are straight.

Are you sure the Hurricane wings are straight?
in most pictures I have seen, they look rather elliptical.
Unless I am not understanding the difference between straight wings (like those on the BF109E) and elliptical (like Spitfire)

warspite1

Agreed, they are not 'dead straight' the whole length of the wing, but this is eliptical....

[Reg]

Elliptical wings can sometimes be difficult to pick visually but they all conform with the criteria "Elliptical taper shortens the chord near the wingtips in such a way that all parts of the wing experience equivalent downwash".*

This is usually achieved by having wing chord (width) at any point being set as a calculation of distance from the wing root. Consequently there isn't a straight edge on the whole wing. This is very efficient wing design but hard to manufacture.

The Hurricane wing might be better described as tapered but both the leading and trailing edges are as straight as a ruler for most of their length. No wing is perfectly straight and you need curves somewhere....)

* Wikipedia Reference - I know but aerodynamics is a complex topic and it is hard to find a definition that isn't a PhD thesis...) [:(]

(Trying to keep this simple.....) [;)]

[wdolson]

The line of the leading and trailing edge of the wing on the Hurricane are close to straight lines from the root to the tip. The wing tapers as you go outward, but that's because the two lines are not parallel. The Spitfire has a relatively straight leading edge with only a slight curve and the trailing edge curves quite a bit, especially from the ailerons out to the wingtip. It gives the Spitfire a kind of oval shaped wing and makes the silhouette unique.

Bill

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Is there an easy way to identify which one is which?

If you get to see them from above/below, the spitfire has elliptical wings* while the hurricane's wings are straight.

(* Note some late Spitfire MkVs had the wing tips removed giving a square tip and improved roll rate).

BTW: That formation in post 4 appears to be led by a Packard engined, clipped wing, bubble canopy Spitfire Mk XVIe which looks significantly different from Warspite's picture of a Mk1 above. (The design evolved over the war).

The tail surface area on the Spit is generally less, the wings are broader front to back at the fuselage, the engine compartment is proportionately larger and the Spit usually has a four bladed prop and the Hurri three. In theory the most efficient number of blades would be one if you could balance it somehow. Since you're somewhat limited in the length of the blades (it's not good if they hit the ground) you have to add blades to take full advantage of greater engine power. Just looking at the Spit's wings you know it's going to be a kite, sort of like the difference between a Fokker Dr-1 and a Camel. edit: I meant a Sopwith Camel, not the four legged kind the Arabs fly.

Reg, why the Packard engines? Was it because the P-51's were sucking up all the Merlin's? That's something way over my head (not that that's saying much) but the difference between a P-51 with a Packard and a P-51 with a Merlin is huge, not so much for a Spit I suppose.

[Erkki]

Also, Spit has a radiator under a wing (Mark V and earlier) or both (the rest of them). Hurricane's radiator is under the fuselage.

Packard engine? You probably mean the RR Griffon.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Thanks!

BTW, no pictures from Martin (aka "Dixie")?


Leo "Apollo11"

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
The tail surface area on the Spit is generally less, the wings are broader front to back at the fuselage, the engine compartment is proportionately larger and the Spit usually has a four bladed prop and the Hurri three. In theory the most efficient number of blades would be one if you could balance it somehow. Since you're somewhat limited in the length of the blades (it's not good if they hit the ground) you have to add blades to take full advantage of greater engine power. Just looking at the Spit's wings you know it's going to be a kite, sort of like the difference between a Fokker Dr-1 and a Camel. edit: I meant a Sopwith Camel, not the four legged kind the Arabs fly.

Reg, why the Packard engines? Was it because the P-51's were sucking up all the Merlin's? That's something way over my head (not that that's saying much) but the difference between a P-51 with a Packard and a P-51 with a Merlin is huge, not so much for a Spit I suppose.

The Spitfire didn't get 4 bladed props until the Mk VIII. Rolls Royce continued to build Merlins in the UK, but Packard in the US built them under license. The deal to build Merlins under license was actually struck before the P-51 got the Merlin. The Packard Merlins were going to Canadian built Hurricanes and P-40Fs. In 1944 the British were building Spitfires faster than Rolls could build Merlins, so some Mk IX airframes were built with Packard Merlins instead. I believe they were the Mk XIV (it was a mark around that number).

Except for a few testbed P-51s, all P-51s had Packard built Merlins. According to Bill Dunn who was in the Eagle Squadrons and later flew P-47s in the USAAF as well as P-51s, the performance of the Packard and Rolls Royce Merlins were pretty much the same, but the Rolls built Merlins were hand built and ran much smoother than the Packard built engines which were mass produced.

The Spitfire was one of the easiest WW II fighters to land. Because of the wing shape, it tended to float when descending and had very gentle stall characteristics. Many of the better fighters had very brutal stall characteristics. The Fw-190 went from flying to a brick without warning. The Corsair had a tendency for one wing to stall before the other. The P-51 needed constant attention on the controls or it would be all over the sky. The only other top fighter that had very good low speed characteristics was the F6F, which was one reason the USN stuck with it. The P-40 was very gentle at low speeds too, but it was considered mostly obsolescent as a first tier fighter by 1943.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
In 1944 the British were building Spitfires faster than Rolls could build Merlins, so some Mk IX airframes were built with Packard Merlins instead. I believe they were the Mk XIV (it was a mark around that number).

Nice summary Bill.

The Mk XIV was a Griffin powered bird. The Mk XVI was basically a Mk IX with a Packard Merlin and a bubble canopy. It also had an E-Wing with 2x 20mmm and 2x 0.50 cal MG.

By the way, the Packard Merlin was also the only difference between a Lancaster B.I and the B.III. It was not unusual for an aircraft to enter routine servicing as a B.I and emerge as a B.III or vice versa.
(The Lancaster B.II were powered by Bristol Hercules radial engines - 300 built).

[wdolson]

When I wrote it I knew something was wrong with the mark number, but I was too lazy to look it up.

Bill

[denisonh]

Nice pictures Richard! Envious!

[Cap Mandrake]

Wow, that pic with them all lined up on the field is awesome. Looks like fantastic weather

[WriterNotViking]

Awesome pictures. [&o] Thanks for posting. Wish I could have been there.